Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 7 cited by

Circuit-Efficient Randomized Quantum Simulation of Non-Unitary Dynamics with Observable-Driven and Symmetry-Aware Designs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a randomized linear-combination-of-Hamiltonian (random-LCHS) framework can solve linear non-unitary ODEs on quantum hardware with logarithmic or even zero ancilla overhead, trading coherent weight loading for Monte-Carlo sa

desk verdict The zero-ancilla claim is built on a false mixture/superposition identity; the coherent randomized version has merit but needs repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08030 v1 pith:VEUFTQ27 submitted 2025-09-09 quant-ph

Songqinghao Yang , Jin-Peng Liu This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords random-LCHSlinearcombinationofHamiltoniansimulationquantumODEsolversrandomizedcompilationcontinuousqDriftobservableestimationsymmetry-awaresamplingnon-Hermitiandynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Random-LCHS applies randomized compilation to both layers of the linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation: the inner Hamiltonian-simulation layer is implemented by continuous qDrift, and the outer linear-combination-of-unitaries layer is replaced by classical sampling of the quadrature nodes. The paper claims this produces an epsilon-accurate quantum state for du/dt = -A(t)u + b(t) with state-preparation cost O(q), gate complexity O~(n q^2 ||A||^2_{∞,1}/ε), and only logarithmic ancilla—or zero ancilla in the fully randomized variant. It also introduces an observable-driven estimator that targets final-time expectation values directly, and a symmetry-aware sampler that pairs symmetry-related local terms. If these claims hold, early fault-tolerant devices could simulate non-unitary dynamics with much smaller circuits, at the price of more repetitions and classical post-processing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LCHS kernel identity Texp(-∫ A) = ∫ f(k)/(1-ik) Texp(-i∫(kL+H)) dk, with exponentially decaying kernel f(z) = e^{(1+iz)^β}/C_β, whose truncation cutoff scales logarithmically in 1/ε. Discretization yields the linear combination Σ_j c_j U_j of unitary evolutions. The inner layer substitutes continuous qDrift, whose diamond-norm error is bounded by 4||A||^2_{∞,1}/r; the outer layer samples indices from |c_j|/||c||_1 and multiplies by the phase c_j/|c_j|, as in Eq. (46). The symmetry-aware variant replaces plain sampling with paired evolution of terms related by an intertwiner ηA = e^{iφ} A^† η, preserving conserved quantities at the sampling level.

What would settle it

On one qubit, take u0 = |0>, U0 = I, U1 = Y, c0 = 1, c1 = i. The coherent LCHS target (I + iY)|0> = |0> - |1> has ⟨X⟩ = -1. The ancilla-free protocol samples I with probability 1/2 and Y with probability 1/2, multiplying by phases that cancel in UρU†, so the average state is maximally mixed with ⟨X⟩ = 0. Run the proposed zero-ancilla circuit on this two-term sum; measuring ⟨X⟩ on many shots distinguishes the claimed phase-preserving average (-1) from the phase-erased mixture (0).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Randomizing both layers of LCHS, the paper claims, makes non-unitary ODE simulation circuit-efficient without sacrificing O(q) state-preparation cost. The propagator is discretized to Σ_j c_j U_j; the inner U_j are continuous-qDrift evolutions, and the outer layer either keeps the LCU (logarithmic ancilla) or samples j from |c_j|/||c||_1 and applies U_j times c_j/|c_j| (zero ancilla). The sampled average is claimed to preserve the complex linear combination, with Monte-Carlo sample size O(q^2/ε^2) and per-circuit gate complexity O~(n q^2 ||A||^2_{∞,1}/ε). The observable-driven variant estimates u(T)^† O u(T) by index-pair sampling; the symmetry-aware variant pairs terms through ηA = e^{iφ} A

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Eq. (46)'s randomized-unitary-sampling identity: it assumes averaging density matrices over sampled unitaries with complex coefficient phases reproduces the coherent linear combination; in fact UρU† erases the global phase of U, so the complex weights reduce to their magnitudes and the coherence is replaced by a classical mixture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, quantum simulations of linear ODEs with non-unitary generators can run with logarithmic or zero ancilla, shifting the dominant cost to Monte-Carlo repetitions.
  • Gate complexity is governed by the integrated norm ||A||_{∞,1} = ∫_0^T ||A(t)|| dt rather than T·max_t ||A(t)||, so problems with sparse-in-time large norms automatically improve.
  • The observable-driven estimator decouples per-circuit depth from target precision in the Pauli model: r = O(q^2 ||α||^2_{1,1}) while the sample size is S = O(1/ε^2).
  • Symmetry-aware pairing of local terms preserves conserved quantities at short times and lowers finite-sample error by roughly 30% in the tested benchmarks without increasing asymptotic circuit complexity.
  • State-preparation oracle queries stay optimal at O(q), where q = (||u0||_1 + ||b||_{L1}) / ||u(T)||_1.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the zero-ancilla claim hinges on Eq. (46)'s assumption that complex phase factors survive averaging over density matrices; since UρU† discards the global phase of U, the sampled average is a classical mixture of the |c_j|-weighted channels, so the coherent cross terms needed for u(T) are absent.
  • Editorial inference: the same phase issue does not necessarily invalidate the symmetry-aware numerical gains, because those gains come from preserving conserved quantities in short-time evolution and may transfer to any coherent LCHS implementation.
  • Editorial inference: if the phase problem can be repaired by adding a small coherent reference register or by sampling unitary pairs with trackable relative phases, the zero-ancilla gate counts would likely acquire an extra O(1/ε^2) or O(q^2) factor, so the practical tradeoff is between one ancilla register and many repetitions.
  • Editorial inference: the observable-driven variant's sample size S = O(1/ε^2) without amplitude estimation is the realistic near-term operating point; the paper's amplitude-estimation improvement requires state-dependent reflections that are likely unavailable on early fault-tolerant devices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes random-LCHS, a randomized-compilation framework for simulating linear non-unitary ODEs by combining the LCHS integral representation with randomized Hamiltonian simulation. Three variants are presented: a general random-LCHS for time-dependent inhomogeneous problems, an observable-driven variant that Monte-Carlo estimates final-time expectation values, and a symmetry-aware variant that uses conserved quantities to improve finite-sample error. The central advertised contribution is a circuit-efficient, low-ancilla (eventually 'ancilla-free') quantum ODE solver. The paper claims complexity bounds for state preparation with O(q) state-preparation queries, per-circuit gate complexity O~(n q^2 ||A||^2/eps), and, in the ancilla-free variant, Monte-Carlo sample size O(q^2/eps^2).

Significance. If correct, the ancilla-free claim would be a significant practical contribution for early fault-tolerant quantum simulation of non-unitary dynamics: it would eliminate the coherent LCU weight-loading registers entirely. The paper also includes numerical experiments comparing a symmetry-protected sampler against a baseline. However, the central ancilla-free theorem rests on an algebraically false density-matrix identity, and the coherent version conflates a stochastic channel with a unitary simulation. Because the main advertised contribution is the zero-ancilla state-preparation protocol, the paper's central claim is not established. The symmetry-aware numerics are empirical and do not compensate for this foundational error.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III Part 2, Eq. (46); Theorems 4–6] The ancilla-free protocol is built on an invalid density-matrix identity. Eq. (46) asserts ρbar = (1/||c||_1) Σ_j c_j U_j ρ0 U_j^†, but since |c_j/|c_j||^2=1, the actual channel is ρbar = (1/||c||_1) Σ_j |c_j| U_j ρ0 U_j^†. The phases cancel in each term, and no cross terms j≠l appear. Randomly applying unitaries on independent shots with classical phase multipliers yields a classical mixture, not the coherent linear combination G|u0>. A two-term counterexample is c1=c2=1, U1=I, U2=X, ρ0=|0><0|: the average state is I/2, while Gρ0G† with G=I+X has off-diagonal coherence. Thus the inequality in Theorem 4 and the success-probability claims in Eq. (48), Theorems 5–6, and Result 1 are unsupported.
  2. [Section III Part 1, Eqs. (18)–(25) and Theorem 2] The coherent version conflates channels with unitaries. c-qDrift, as defined in Eq. (18), is a stochastic quantum channel: Theorem 1 bounds its diamond-norm error. But the LCU construction in Eq. (21) requires the operators U_j to be unitaries that can be applied coherently under a SELECT oracle. The proof of Theorem 2 then uses Eq. (25) to bound the error of the sum Σ_j c_j U_j as if each U_j were a unitary approximation. This is a derivation gap: one cannot block-encode a random channel as a unitary in this way. The authors need either to provide a coherent realization of the c-qDrift layer or to reformulate the algorithm and its guarantees in purely sampling terms.
  3. [Theorem 4 and Eq. (47)] The randomized unitary sampling theorem is stated for a Hermitian H and a real-valued function F on [-1,1]. In the LCHS setting, F(A) = Te^{-∫ A}, with A = L + iH, is not a real function of a Hermitian matrix, and the coefficients c_j are generally complex. Eq. (47) identifies F(A) with the time-ordered exponential, but the theorem's hypotheses are not met. Even setting this aside, the identity in Eq. (46) is false for complex c_j, so Theorem 4 cannot be applied to the LCHS context.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Result 1] The phrase 'nearly or exactly zero ancilla' is not supported by the proof once Eq. (46) is corrected; the abstract should be tempered if the ancilla-free claim cannot be established.
  2. [Eq. (62)] The equality ∫_0^T dτ Σ_l α_l(t)||A_l||∞ = ||α||_{1,1} appears to omit absolute values on α_l(t). Unless all α_l are assumed nonnegative, sign cancellations can make the equality false.
  3. [Theorem 4 heading] The theorem title contains a stray 'theorem' after the heading: 'Randomized Unitary Sampling). theorem'. Please correct.
  4. [Eq. (48)] The success probability expression |⟨u(T)|u0⟩|^2/||c||_1^2 is not clearly normalized, and the projector Π onto the 'solution subspace' is not defined precisely. This should be clarified even in a corrected version.
  5. [Section IV, Algorithm 1] The weights W_R and W_I are introduced in Algorithm 1 but not formally defined before Eq. (54). The bound W := max{W_R,W_I} ≤ ||c||_1^2 should be stated and proved explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the complexity claims follow from cited parameter-free theorems, though Eq. (46) is a separate correctness issue.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. Random-LCHS replaces the coherent LCU outer layer with Monte-Carlo sampling and the inner Hamiltonian simulation with c-qDrift. The claimed gate complexities (Theorems 2, 3, 5, 6) are obtained by substituting established error bounds: the LCHS representation and kernel from Refs. [21,48], the continuous qDrift bound from Ref. [22], and the randomized unitary sampling theorem from Ref. [18]. These are cited as external mathematical results, not as the paper's own conclusions. Although Ref. [21] shares an author with the present paper, that work is a parameter-free, previously published identity with stated assumptions that do not include the target result, so it constitutes independent support rather than a self-citation chain. The observable-driven estimator is a direct Monte-Carlo estimate of the LCHS double-sum, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the symmetry-aware improvements are presented as numerical empirical comparisons, not as derived predictions. The questionable density-matrix identity in Eq. (46) is indeed mathematically problematic, but that is a correctness flaw in the ancilla-free protocol, not a circularity: the protocol does not define its input in terms of its output, nor does it fit parameters to the final state. Therefore, the derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity concerns.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the LCHS identity, the c-qDrift error bound, the block-encoding model, and the randomized unitary sampling theorem. The free parameter beta is an algorithmic knob. The main assumption introduced ad hoc for this paper is the treatment of the randomized-LCU average as a coherent state-preparation channel, which fails for complex coefficients. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • kernel exponent beta = not fixed (0 < beta < 1)
    Controls the LCHS kernel decay in Eq. (3); the truncation size K and quadrature size M depend on 1/beta, but the paper does not specify a value or optimize it.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math LCHS integral representation Te^{-integral A} = integral f(k)/(1-ik) Te^{-i integral (kL+H)} dk
    Eqs. (1)-(2); assumed from prior work [21,48] without proof.
  • domain assumption L(t) positive semi-definite on [0,T] (stability condition)
    Stated in Section II and assumed throughout: 'we assume the normal settings (e.g., L(t) >= 0) for the LCHS framework without explicitly stating them.'
  • domain assumption Block-encoding access with normalization alpha(t) = ||A(t)||
    Section II B: 'Without loss of generality, we will assume alpha(t)=||A(t)|| throughout the paper.'
  • standard math c-qDrift error bound ||E - U||_diamond <= 4||A||^2_inf,1 / r
    Theorem 1, cited from Ref. [22]; used as the inner-layer error model.
  • ad hoc to paper Randomized unitary sampling yields a valid quantum channel with complex coefficients (Eq. 46)
    Theorem 4, attributed to Ref. [18], is interpreted as producing rho_bar = (1/||c||_1) sum_j c_j U_j rho0 U_j^dagger. This is not a valid density matrix for complex c_j, and the interpretation is load-bearing for Theorems 5-6.
  • domain assumption The 1-norm of the LCU coefficients satisfies ||c||_1 = O(1)
    Appendix A: 'The 1-norm of the LCU coefficients sum |c_q,m| is O(1)'; needed to drop ||c||_1 factors in the complexity bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Circuit-Efficient Randomized Quantum Simulation of Non-Unitary Dynamics with Observable-Driven and Symmetry-Aware Designs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VEUFTQ27

@misc{pith2026250908030,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Circuit-Efficient Randomized Quantum Simulation of Non-Unitary Dynamics with Observable-Driven and Symmetry-Aware Designs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VEUFTQ27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08030}
}
abstract

We introduce random-LCHS, a circuit-efficient randomized-compilation framework for simulating linear non-unitary dynamics of the form $\partial_t u(t) = -A(t) u(t) + b(t)$ built on the linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation (LCHS). We propose three related settings: the general random-LCHS for time-dependent inhomogeneous linear dynamics; the observable-driven random-LCHS, which targets estimation of an observable's expectation at the final time; and the symmetric random-LCHS, a time-independent, homogeneous reduction that can exploit physical symmetries. Our contributions are threefold: first, by randomizing the outer linear-combination-of-unitaries (LCU) layer as well as the deterministic inner Hamiltonian simulation layer, random-LCHS attains favorable resource overheads in the circuit design for early fault-tolerant devices; second, the observable-driven variant employs an unbiased Monte-Carlo estimator to target expectation values directly, reducing sample complexity; and third, integrating the physical symmetry in the model with the sampling scheme yields further empirical improvements, demonstrating tighter error bounds in realistic numerics. We illustrate these techniques with theoretical guarantees as well as numerical verifications and discuss implementation trade-offs for near-term quantum hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08030 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Each curve (blue: the original linear-kernel + Trot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The log-log plots show mean error (with standard-deviation error bars) as a function of the sampling budget [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Benchmarking results for the TFIM (top row) and the HN (bottom row) models. The time span shown is five seconds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Toward Efficient End-to-End Quantum Elliptic PDE Solvers: a Multilevel Correction Algorithm for Direct Observable Estimation

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A multilevel algorithm using Schur-complement factorization on interlevel corrections eliminates polynomial h-dependent readout overhead for observables with χ≤2 in quantum elliptic PDE solvers, achieving near-Heisenb...

  2. Quantum Eigenvalue Transformation via Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation: A Weyl Calculus Approach

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Develops Weyl-calculus-based LCHS formulas for analytic f(A) yielding O(log 1/ε) quantum eigenvalue transformation and 2.1× cheaper time-dependent ODE simulation.

  3. Structure-Preserving Quantum Method of Lines for Evolutionary PDEs with Mixed Boundary Conditions

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Presents structure-preserving quantum method-of-lines algorithms for parabolic and hyperbolic PDEs with mixed BCs, using Coons interpolation, similarity transforms, and explicit quantum circuit constructions with comp...

  4. Quantum circuits for the advection-diffusion equation with boundary conditions based on LCHS

    math.NA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quantum circuit framework for advection-diffusion PDEs with Robin and periodic boundary conditions via LCHS, including LCU error analysis and gate complexity showing potential quantum advantage in high dimensions.

  5. Quantum Derivative Pricing for SPDEs via BDSDE Representation

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Quantum-accelerated MLMC methods for BDSDE-based SPDE derivative pricing and Greeks achieve sampling complexity improvement from O(ε^{-2}) to O(ε^{-1}).

  6. Quantum algorithm for the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation via the Lax-pair scattering

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Quantum algorithm for 1D NLSE via Lax-pair scattering performs time evolution analytically in the scattering domain and reconstructs solutions with QSVT.

  7. From Meta Idea to Advanced Mathematical Discovery -- Human-AI Co-Discovery of Sign-Embedding Quantum Algorithms

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Human-AI collaboration expanded a meta-idea on rational approximation into sign-embedding quantum algorithms for matrix problems, with humans retaining final judgment on routes and refinements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    =O(1). The above theorem is easily proved with Hoeffding’s bound, Pr |O−E[ bO]|> ϵ/2 ≤2 exp − 2Sϵ2 (2W∥O∥) 2 .(55) Algorithm 1:Observable-driven random-LCHS with c-qDrift Input:Coefficients{c j}M−1 j=0 , approximate simulators{ eU(T, kj)}, state-preparationO u for|u 0⟩, measurement access to observableO, target errorϵ, failure probabilityδ, sample countS....

  2. [2]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  3. [3]

    D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamiltonians, Communications in Mathematical Physics270, 359 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0508139

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 9456 (2018), arXiv:1711.10980

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    A. M. Childs, J.-P. Liu, and A. Ostrander, High-precision quantum algorithms for partial differential equations, Quantum 5, 574 (2021), arXiv:2002.07868

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    An, J.-P

    D. An, J.-P. Liu, D. Wang, and Q. Zhao, Quantum differential equation solvers: Limitations and fast-forwarding, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics406, 189 (2025), arXiv:2211.05246

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    J.-P. Liu, H. Ø. Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs, Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2026805118 (2021), arXiv:2011.03185

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Krovi, Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equations, Quantum7, 913 (2023), arXiv:2202.01054

    H. Krovi, Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equations, Quantum7, 913 (2023), arXiv:2202.01054

    arXiv 2023

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    J.-P. Liu, D. An, D. Fang, J. Wang, G. H. Low, and S. Jordan, Efficient quantum algorithm for nonlinear reaction–diffusion equations and energy estimation, Communications in Mathematical Physics404, 963 (2023), arXiv:2205.01141

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    An and K

    D. An and K. Trivisa, Quantum algorithms for linear and non-linear fractional reaction-diffusion equations (2023), arXiv:2310.18900

    2023

  3. [11]

    Jennings, M

    D. Jennings, M. Lostaglio, R. B. Lowrie, S. Pallister, and A. T. Sornborger, The cost of solving linear differential equations on a quantum computer: fast-forwarding to explicit resource counts, Quantum8, 1553 (2024), arXiv:2309.07881

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Besedin, M

    I. Besedin, M. Kerschbaum, J. Knoll, I. Hesner, L. B¨ odeker, L. Colmenarez, L. Hofele, N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek,et al., Realizing lattice surgery on two distance-three repetition codes with superconducting qubits (2025), arXiv:2501.04612

    2025

  5. [13]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025), arXiv:2408.13687

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Physical Review Letters118, 010501 (2017), arXiv:1606.02685

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Campbell, Random compiler for fast Hamiltonian simulation, Physical Review Letters123, 070503 (2019), arXiv:1811.08017

    E. Campbell, Random compiler for fast Hamiltonian simulation, Physical Review Letters123, 070503 (2019), arXiv:1811.08017

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chen, H.-Y

    C.-F. Chen, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. A. Tropp, Concentration for random product formulas, PRX Quantum2, 040305 (2021), arXiv:2008.11751

    2021

  10. [18]

    Nakaji, M

    K. Nakaji, M. Bagherimehrab, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, qSWIFT: High-order randomized compiler for Hamiltonian simula- tion, PRX Quantum5, 020330 (2024), arXiv:2302.14811

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Chakraborty, Implementing any linear combination of unitaries on intermediate-term quantum computers, Quantum8, 1496 (2024), arXiv:2302.13555

    S. Chakraborty, Implementing any linear combination of unitaries on intermediate-term quantum computers, Quantum8, 1496 (2024), arXiv:2302.13555

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. Wang, S. McArdle, and M. Berta, Qubit-efficient randomized quantum algorithms for linear algebra, PRX Quantum5, 020324 (2024), arXiv:2302.01873

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chakraborty, S

    S. Chakraborty, S. Hazra, T. Li, C. Shao, X. Wang, and Y. Zhang, Quantum singular value transformation without block encodings: Near-optimal complexity with minimal ancilla (2025), arXiv:2504.02385

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    An, J.-P

    D. An, J.-P. Liu, and L. Lin, Linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation for nonunitary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost, Physical Review Letters131, 150603 (2023), arXiv:2303.01029

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, Y. Su, X. Wang, and N. Wiebe, Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation withL 1-norm scaling, Quantum4, 254 (2020), arXiv:1906.07115

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Yang, Randomized term grouping over physical law on digital quantum simulation (2023), arXiv:2309.14378

    S. Yang, Randomized term grouping over physical law on digital quantum simulation (2023), arXiv:2309.14378

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang, Z

    X.-M. Zhang, Z. Huo, K. Liu, Y. Li, and X. Yuan, Unbiased random circuit compiler for time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation (2022), arXiv:2212.09445

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    D. W. Berry, High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 105301 (2014), arXiv:1010.2745

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. Fang, L. Lin, and Y. Tong, Time-marching based quantum solvers for time-dependent linear differential equations, Quantum7, 955 (2023), arXiv:2208.06941

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu, Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via Schr¨ odingerization, Physical Review Letters133, 230602 (2024), arXiv:2212.13969

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu, Quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications and detailed analysis, Physical Review A108, 032603 (2023), arXiv:2212.14703

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, A. Ostrander, and G. Wang, Quantum algorithm for linear differential equations with exponen- 26 tially improved dependence on precision, Communications in Mathematical Physics356, 1057 (2017), arXiv:1701.03684

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Physical Review Letters 103, 150502 (2009), arXiv:0811.3171

    2009 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. M. Childs, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision, SIAM Journal on Computing46, 1920 (2017), arXiv:1511.02306

    1920 arXiv

  25. [33]

    An and L

    D. An and L. Lin, Quantum linear system solver based on time-optimal adiabatic quantum computing and quantum approximate optimization algorithm, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing3, 1 (2022), arXiv:1909.05500

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lin and Y

    L. Lin and Y. Tong, Optimal polynomial based quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems, Quantum4, 361 (2020), arXiv:1910.14596

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Suba¸ sı, R

    Y. Suba¸ sı, R. D. Somma, and D. Orsucci, Quantum algorithms for systems of linear equations inspired by adiabatic quantum computing, Physical Review Letters122, 060504 (2019), arXiv:1805.10549

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P. C. S. Costa, D. An, Y. R. Sanders, Y. Su, R. Babbush, and D. W. Berry, Optimal scaling quantum linear-systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem, PRX Quantum3, 040303 (2022), arXiv:2111.08152

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Jennings, M

    D. Jennings, M. Lostaglio, S. Pallister, A. T. Sornborger, and Y. Subası, Efficient quantum linear solver algorithm with detailed running costs, arXiv:2305.11352

  30. [38]

    G. H. Low and Y. Su, Quantum eigenvalue processing, in2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2024) pp. 1051–1062, arXiv:2401.06240

    2024

  31. [39]

    G. H. Low and Y. Su, Quantum linear system algorithm with optimal queries to initial state preparation (2024), arXiv:2410.18178

    2024

  32. [40]

    D. W. Berry and P. C. S. Costa, Quantum algorithm for time-dependent differential equations using Dyson series, Quantum 8, 1369 (2024), arXiv:2212.03544

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    D. An, A. Onwunta, and G. Yang, Fast-forwarding quantum algorithms for linear dissipative differential equations (2024), arXiv:2410.13189

    2024

  34. [42]

    A. M. Childs and J.-P. Liu, Quantum spectral methods for differential equations, Communications in Mathematical Physics 375, 1427 (2020), arXiv:1901.00961

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Shang, N

    Z.-X. Shang, N. Guo, D. An, and Q. Zhao, Design nearly optimal quantum algorithm for linear differential equations via Lindbladians (2024), arXiv:2410.19628

    2024

  36. [44]

    S. Jin, X. Li, N. Liu, and Y. Yu, Quantum simulation for quantum dynamics with artificial boundary conditions, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing46, B403 (2024), arXiv:2304.00667

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. Jin, X. Li, N. Liu, and Y. Yu, Quantum simulation for partial differential equations with physical boundary or interface conditions, Journal of Computational Physics498, 112707 (2024), arXiv:2305.02710

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and C. Ma, Quantum simulation of Maxwell’s equations via Schr¨ odingerisation, ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis58, 1853 (2024), arXiv:2308.08408

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. Hu, S. Jin, N. Liu, and L. Zhang, Dilation theorem via Schr¨ odingerisation, with applications to the quantum simulation of differential equations, Studies in Applied Mathematics154, e70047 (2025), arXiv:2309.16262

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Jin and N

    S. Jin and N. Liu, Analog quantum simulation of partial differential equations, Quantum Science and Technology9, 035047 (2024), arXiv:2308.00646

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    D. An, A. M. Childs, and L. Lin, Quantum algorithm for linear non-unitary dynamics with near-optimal dependence on all parameters (2023), arXiv:2312.03916

    2023

  42. [50]

    D. An, A. M. Childs, L. Lin, and L. Ying, Laplace transform based quantum eigenvalue transformation via linear combi- nation of Hamiltonian simulation (2024), arXiv:2411.04010

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Novikau and I

    I. Novikau and I. Joseph, Explicit near-optimal quantum algorithm for solving the advection-diffusion equation (2025), arXiv:2501.11146

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Schleich, T

    P. Schleich, T. Kharazi, X. Li, J.-P. Liu, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and N. Wiebe, Arbitrary boundary conditions and constraints in quantum algorithms for differential equations via penalty projections (2025), arXiv:2506.21751

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    G. H. Low and R. D. Somma, Optimal quantum simulation of linear non-unitary dynamics (2025), arXiv:2508.19238

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Huang and D

    X. Huang and D. An, Fourier transform-based linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation (2025), arXiv:2508.19596

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Lu, H.-E

    R. Lu, H.-E. Li, Z. Liu, and J.-P. Liu, Infinite-dimensional extension of the linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation: Theorems and applications (2025), arXiv:2502.19688

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Hatano and M

    N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential product formulas of higher orders, inQuantum Annealing and Other Optimization Methods(Springer, 2005) pp. 37–68, arXiv:math-ph/0506007

    2005 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling, Physical Review X11, 011020 (2021), arXiv:1912.08854

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    G. H. Low and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation in the interaction picture (2018), arXiv:1805.00675

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    B. D. Clader, A. M. Dalzell, N. Stamatopoulos, G. Salton, M. Berta, and W. J. Zeng, Quantum resources required to block-encode a matrix of classical data, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering3, 1 (2023), arXiv:2206.03505

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Gily´ en, and S. Jeffery, The power of block-encoded matrix powers: Improved regression techniques via faster Hamiltonian simulation (2018), arXiv:1804.01973

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Camps, L

    D. Camps, L. Lin, R. Van Beeumen, and C. Yang, Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications45, 801 (2024), arXiv:2203.10236

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, inProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (2019) pp. 193–204, arXiv:1806.01838

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    G. Yang, A. Onwunta, and D. An, Quantum differential equation solvers with low state preparation cost: Eliminating the 27 time dependence in dissipative equations (2025), arXiv:2508.15170

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    D. Fang, D. L. George, and Y. Tong, Qubit-efficient quantum algorithm for linear differential equations (2025), arXiv:2507.16995

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    X. Li, Q. Ding, K. Liu, and X. Yuan, Dynamics simulation of arbitrary non-Hermitian systems based on quantum Monte Carlo (2025), arXiv:2507.11675

    2025

  58. [66]

    Lin,Lecture Notes on Quantum Algorithms for Scientific Computation(2022) arXiv:2201.08309

    L. Lin,Lecture Notes on Quantum Algorithms for Scientific Computation(2022) arXiv:2201.08309

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Hoyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation, Contemporary Mathe- matics305, 53 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0005055

    2002 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Tang and J

    E. Tang and J. Wright, Amplitude amplification and estimation require inverses (2025), arXiv:2507.23787

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Cornelissen and Y

    A. Cornelissen and Y. Hamoudi, A sublinear-time quantum algorithm for approximating partition functions, inPro- ceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)(SIAM, 2023) pp. 1245–1264, arXiv:2207.08643

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Rall and B

    P. Rall and B. Fuller, Amplitude estimation from quantum signal processing, Quantum7, 937 (2023), arXiv:2207.08628

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    van Apeldoorn, A

    J. van Apeldoorn, A. Cornelissen, A. Gily´ en, and G. Nannicini, Quantum tomography using state-preparation unitaries, inProceedings of the 2023 annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA)(SIAM, 2023) pp. 1265–1318, arXiv:2207.08800

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    F. Wei, R. Lu, Y. Shao, J. Li, J.-P. Liu, and Z. Liu, Belt: Block encoding of linear transformation on density matrices (2025), arXiv:2508.12858

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian physics, Advances in Physics69, 249 (2020), arXiv:2006.01837

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany, I. I. Arkhipov, and F. Nori, Hybrid-Liouvillian formalism connecting exceptional points of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and Liouvillians via postselection of quantum trajectories, Physical Review A101, 062112 (2020), arXiv:2002.11620

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Naghiloo, M

    M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Quantum state tomography across the exceptional point in a single dissipative qbit, Nature Physics15, 1232 (2019), arXiv:1901.07968

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Ruzicka, K

    F. Ruzicka, K. S. Agarwal, and Y. N. Joglekar, Conserved quantities, exceptional points, and antilinear symmetries in non- Hermitian systems, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 2038 (IOP Publishing, 2021) p. 012021, arXiv:2104.11265

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Real spectra in non-Hermitian hamiltonians having PT symmetry, Physical Review Letters 80, 5243 (1998), arXiv:physics/9712001

    1998 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Localization transitions in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics, Physical Review Letters77, 570 (1996), arXiv:cond-mat/9603165

    1996 arXiv

  71. [79]

    F. K. Kunst, E. Edvardsson, J. C. Budich, and E. J. Bergholtz, Biorthogonal bulk-boundary correspondence in non- Hermitian systems, Physical Review Letters121, 026808 (2018), arXiv:1805.06492

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    J. D. Watson, Randomly compiled quantum simulation with exponentially reduced circuit depths (2024), arXiv:2411.04240

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Okuma, K

    N. Okuma, K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, and M. Sato, Topological origin of non-Hermitian skin effects, Physical Review Letters124, 086801 (2020), arXiv:1910.02878

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Kawabata, T

    K. Kawabata, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu, Entanglement phase transition induced by the non-Hermitian skin effect, Physical Review X13, 021007 (2023), arXiv:2206.05384

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Yang, and C. Fang, Universal non-Hermitian skin effect in two and higher dimensions, Nature Communications 13, 2496 (2022), arXiv:2102.05059

    2022 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Pocrnic, P

    M. Pocrnic, P. D. Johnson, A. Katabarwa, and N. Wiebe, Constant-factor improvements in quantum algorithms for linear differential equations (2025), arXiv:2506.20760

    2025

  77. [85]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters, in 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(IEEE, 2015) pp. 792–809, arXiv:1501.01715. 28 Supplementary Materials Appendix A: Numerical...

    2015 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Queries to allHAM-T j:O αt log (αt/ϵ) log log (αt/ϵ) ,

  79. [87]

    Qubits:n s +O na + log t αϵ ⟨∥ ˙H∥⟩ ∞ +α 2 ,

  80. [88]

    We now present a complexity analysis for a general inhomogeneous ODE

    Primitive gates: O na + log t αϵ (⟨∥ ˙H∥⟩ ∞ +α 2) αtlog (αt/ϵ) log log (αt/ϵ) . We now present a complexity analysis for a general inhomogeneous ODE. Theorem 11.Suppose thatL(t)is positive semi-definite on[0, T], and we are given the oracles described in Section.B. Let∥A(t)∥ ∞...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.